Key result
In male heart failure patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, Studenski's and Newman's methods were more likely to detect sarcopenia than Baumgartner's method (both P < 0.005).
Why the study?
Defining sarcopenia based on ALM/height2 can underestimate its prevalence in overweight or obese patients with heart failure, prompting the evaluation of newer diagnostic methods.
Do Studenski's and Newman's methods better detect sarcopenia in overweight/obese male patients with heart failure compared to Baumgartner's method?
Cross-Sectional (n=168)
Do Studenski's and Newman's methods better detect sarcopenia in overweight/obese male patients with heart failure compared to Baumgartner's method?
p-value: p=< 0.005
In overweight and obese male patients with heart failure, Studenski's and Newman's methods are more effective at detecting sarcopenia than the traditional Baumgartner's method.
Alternative sarcopenia definitions may identify more cases in obese HF; leaves open prognostic value and need for validation.
Aims The definition of sarcopenia based on appendicular lean mass/height (2) (ALM/height (2)) is often used, although it can underestimate the prevalence of sarcopenia in overweight/obese patients with heart failure. Therefore, new methods have been proposed to overcome this limitation. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of sarcopenia by three methods and compare body composition in this population. Methods and results We enrolled 168 male patients with heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%). Sixty-six patients (39.3%) were identified with sarcopenia by at least one method. The lower 20th percentile defined as the cut-off point for sarcopenia was 7.03 kg/m2, −2.32 and 0.76 for Baumgartner's (20.8%), Newman's (21.4%), and Studenski's methods (21.4%), respectively. Patients with body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2 were more likely to be identified by Baumgartner's than Studenski's method (P < 0.001). However, in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, Studenski's and Newman's methods were more likely to detect sarcopenia than Baumgartner's method (both P < 0.005). Patients were further divided into three subgroups: (i) patients classified in all indexes (n = 8), (ii) patients classified in Baumgartner's (sarcopenic; n = 27), and (iii) patients classified in both Newman's and Studenski's methods (sarcopenic obesity; n = 31). Comparing body composition among groups, all sarcopenic groups presented lower total lean mass compared with non-sarcopenic patients, whereas sarcopenic obese patients had higher total lean mass than lean sarcopenic patients. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that the prevalence of sarcopenia in overweight/obese patients is similar to lean sarcopenic patients when other methods are considered. In patients with higher BMI, Studenski's method seems to be more feasible to detect sarcopenia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fonseca et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (n=168). Studenski's and Newman's methods vs. Baumgartner's method was evaluated on Detection of sarcopenia in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (p=< 0.005). In male heart failure patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, Studenski's and Newman's methods were more likely to detect sarcopenia than Baumgartner's method (both P < 0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: